While I like the predictions for population growth being put out, I can't help but think they are underestimating the true growth. From what I've understood, You are modelling OTL greek growth rates, just with a different starting population in 1860. However, as this timeline has already shown, population growth is significantly higher in this Greece, due to better land reform, a better economy, and less general strife.

Now when you look at OTL, as has already been mentioned the first 30 years of Greece owning these new territories were quite a mess, that severely hampered growth, while encouraging emigration. With the exact opposite situation, a government that is being actively competent instead of actively harmful, you would expect to see a much brighter demographic situation. In this Greece, I would not expect the population to be so concentrated around Athens, as the periphery of the country is prospering instead of being ignored or neglected .

Basically, in this timeline, the population of Greece grew at about 2% per year between 1836 and 1853. Now if you add 800,000 people to the 1858 figure, while maintaining the growth rate for the original 1.4 million people over those 5 years, you receive an 1858 population of 2.33 million. Maintain a 2% growth figure on that until 1896 and you get nearly 5 million people. Now I'm not sure if 2% growth is what will occur. As I can't be sure as to how quickly the demographic transition will strike Greece, though considering at the point they started, I can't imagine they would slink down to, let's say French growth rates by 1900. On the other hand, with the major investment, forgiving of debts, and overall strengthening of the country and it's economy due to the war, it's not inconceivable to have growth rates higher than 2%.

Overall I would expect Greece to have a population between 4 and 5 million in the territories it holds as of 1858, instead of 3.5 million by the turn of the century. The only way I can see it being in the 3 millions would be if there was some major strife in Greece, civil war, or occupation of significant territories in a brutal war. I can't see anything short of that knocking Greece down to it's OTL growth rate.
 
While I like the predictions for population growth being put out, I can't help but think they are underestimating the true growth. From what I've understood, You are modelling OTL greek growth rates, just with a different starting population in 1860. However, as this timeline has already shown, population growth is significantly higher in this Greece, due to better land reform, a better economy, and less general strife.

Now when you look at OTL, as has already been mentioned the first 30 years of Greece owning these new territories were quite a mess, that severely hampered growth, while encouraging emigration. With the exact opposite situation, a government that is being actively competent instead of actively harmful, you would expect to see a much brighter demographic situation. In this Greece, I would not expect the population to be so concentrated around Athens, as the periphery of the country is prospering instead of being ignored or neglected .

Basically, in this timeline, the population of Greece grew at about 2% per year between 1836 and 1853. Now if you add 800,000 people to the 1858 figure, while maintaining the growth rate for the original 1.4 million people over those 5 years, you receive an 1858 population of 2.33 million. Maintain a 2% growth figure on that until 1896 and you get nearly 5 million people. Now I'm not sure if 2% growth is what will occur. As I can't be sure as to how quickly the demographic transition will strike Greece, though considering at the point they started, I can't imagine they would slink down to, let's say French growth rates by 1900. On the other hand, with the major investment, forgiving of debts, and overall strengthening of the country and it's economy due to the war, it's not inconceivable to have growth rates higher than 2%.

Overall I would expect Greece to have a population between 4 and 5 million in the territories it holds as of 1858, instead of 3.5 million by the turn of the century. The only way I can see it being in the 3 millions would be if there was some major strife in Greece, civil war, or occupation of significant territories in a brutal war. I can't see anything short of that knocking Greece down to it's OTL growth rate.
While you make a good point, I feel as though I should point out that Greece is still a small nation with limited space to go around, while percentage wise emigration should decrease, simply because of the fact there are more people, there should be still be not insignificant numbers of Greeks going elsewhere establishing communities abroad. If I remember correctly from earlier in the thread, the consensus seemed to be that due to the relatively greater international nature of the Greek middle class compared to others, ethnic greek enclaves may be smaller, but they would be greater in number, more prosperous, and spread out further due to emphasis on international trade.
 
While I see your point, and agree that Greece does have an upper limit in how many people can live it in, I don't think modern Greece is particularly close to that limit. Today Greece has a population density of less than 1/3rd of countries such as Spain or Portugal. While Greece cannot sustain on its own land a density of people like France or Germany, never mind England, I think a significantly higher number is not implausible. Yes, Greece is mountainous and rocky, yet so is very large segments of Spain. Greece also has the advantage of not having any drylands or deserts within it (unless they get VERY far into Anatolia).

Today Greece is still not particularly dense outside of Athens, Thessaloniki, and some of the islands. There's a lot of room for growth in the Peloponnese, Thessaly, Epirus, and many of the islands. Greece's agriculture is miles ahead of it's OTL counterpart at the moment, and the gap will remain for the foreseeable future. Simply put, starting good management and land reform decades early allows a much higher carrying population in the late 1800s. Yes, if Greece had a population of 5 million in 1900, I would expect them to be a net importer of food, but that would not be unreasonable at that point.

At the moment, Greece is more than halfway to it's modern size, and modern Greece is slightly larger than England. Obviously it's not as fertile, but if it could support a population density like that of Spain for example, it could have some rather impressive numbers.
 
with limited space to go around,
Actually Thessaly was thinly populated. The major problem was that the majority of farmland was dominated by 400 (396 to be precise) huge estates with sharecroppers tied to them. The landowners held the best land in Greece in thralldom. The condition of the otl greek agriculture was terrible, without mechanization and oxen for ploughing. The ploughs were wooden with an iron mouldboard at best. Malaria was an important if secondary factor. That's why I do believe that Thessaly could experience a population boom just by avoiding turning the peasants into serfs and by management of the marshy land (again, as already happened in Copais). Thessaly can easily support 500k at the very least.

A minor destination is also Chios. The massacre depopulated the richest island of the Aegean. In otl by 1893 the population had risen to 70k, a far cry for the pre-massacre 120k. Mastic is an amazing product and Chios had a monopoly of it. Moreover, the rich island had extensive plantations of orange, mandarin, olive and fig trees. Chios is a big garden. The island had even antimony mines in the north, while the most influential greek merchants were Chians. So, at least 50k migrants can go there.
 
Last edited:
While you make a good point, I feel as though I should point out that Greece is still a small nation with limited space to go around, while percentage wise emigration should decrease, simply because of the fact there are more people, there should be still be not insignificant numbers of Greeks going elsewhere establishing communities abroad. If I remember correctly from earlier in the thread, the consensus seemed to be that due to the relatively greater international nature of the Greek middle class compared to others, ethnic greek enclaves may be smaller, but they would be greater in number, more prosperous, and spread out further due to emphasis on international trade.
i think you are underestimating how much population greece can sustain,otl a lot of emigration happened because the cities of greece werent very developed(otl the largest city after Athens and Thessaloniki is Patra with a population of 160.000 and aside from five other cities ,all others have a population below 100.000 )case is that many of the regions in greece given the development that they have had ittl can actually sustain a rather large population if they are properly developed which they are in this tl

There is also the matter that greece during the first emigration period(1890-1910)was experiencing a financial crisis as a result of the reforms the Trikoupis goverment did and were worsened after the 1897 greco-turkish war when greece was forced to repay the ottoman empire,furthermore at the time the currant crisis was taking place which was a big part of the economy ,as such you shouldnt expect to see otl levels of emigration to other countries without a comparable situation given that greece is expected to enjoy a pretty good rate of economic deveopment in the future.
 
Last edited:
Assuming you don’t want to just retcon your update I think the North Epirus issue kinda depends on how the war goes for the Ottomans. If it’s disaster or a Pyrrhic victory for the Ottomans I could see a situation where the Ottomans sell the land to the Greeks after another group of Partisans rise up there that they just don’t have the energy, men, or cash to deal with. The Greeks would be chomping at the bit to take a bite out of the weakened ottomans so this could buy peace. Or perhaps Russia pushes for it to be conceded to Greece in an attempt to balance the scales somewhat. I mean Britain just gave them a kings ransom without firing a shot. So they’re riding high on public opinion currently. Russia would probably like to counter that. They could even label it as a reward for the heroic Greek volunteers that assisted them during the war.

If the ottomans win I’m not sure how to get it to Greece without just altering the treaty last update. If it stays in Ottoman hands though it’ll be the constant sore spot people have about the treaty I think. That area of land has a lot of significance to the Greeks. Whatever you end up deciding I look forward to the next update.
That's why I limited this to only the westernmost part of North Epirus. In effect yes there is a difference of maybe 2-3,000 square km but that will be causing immensely less trouble for all involved. The Ottomans get rid of a rebellious area that economically keeping it down costs way more than it offers, the Greeks get a town that's way more significant for their political establishment than its size would guarantee, the Milios family comes from there and other Epirote notables would also have a vented interest supporting this, giving quite a push to supporters of the treaty. And the Ottomans also get Sazan island which is strategically rather more significant for them, lest they find themselves with a Greek fort there making Valona useless in wartime and threatening it constantly.
@Lascaris would Greece prefer Himara and Argyrokastro than the tiny yet strategically valuable Sazan island? To get Sazan in the Otranto Straits without Great Powers throwing a fit is a very rare event. On the other hand, Himara and Argyrokastro are now geographically exposed with Ioannina and Corfu in greek hands. The main east-west road that connects them with the ottoman power centers in Monastir and Salonica is cut off. The ottomans can reach the area only by the Aoos valley through a volatile sanjak of Berat. So, it seems to me that the area can be left as a ripe fruit, easy to pluck in the first opportune moment. On the other hand, Sazan gives unique geopolitical advantages and makes Greece a power in the Adriatic.

Remember, the fall of the Austrian Empire is very recent. Every single policy maker in Athens would know that Metternich would eat his hat before letting Greece control such an important island. So, it seems a very opportune moment to get it.

The military men from Himara will dislike it, but greek propagandists may want to leave Himara out for the moment and keep it a center for greek learning and culture that would serve propagandist purposes regarding the orthodox population of North Epirus and south Albania be they Greeks, Albanians or Vlachs. If Himara and Argyrokastro become greek they could be afraid that they will lose the traditional greek soft power tool -good schools.
So after some thought, I've decided to give Greece Northern Epirus too as @Lascaris suggested. There really isn't a good reason not hand it over at this time as its a rather poor region, inhabited primarily by rebellious Greeks. As such, I've edited the last part accordingly and have also included a map of Greece's new borders, which I'll also post here for convenience (its a slightly edited version of the one provided by @Bloodmage).
1858 Greece Timeline Map .png

Apologies to @Gian for now invalidating his wonderful VT-Bam of the Greece's territorial expansion ITTL.

Regarding economy, the most valuable addition in Epirus is its human capital. Ioannina had pretty good schools that educated not only Greeks but the local muslim elite as well (Tourkoyianniotes). As the land around Ioannina and the Zagori villages was pretty poor, people looked to commerce to make their fortunes. Those landlubbers left seaborne trade for others and took up the old caravan roads in the Balkans. By the late 18th century, they had formed a vast trade network within the Austrian Empire and the Danubian Principalities. Their merchant colonies could be found in Vienna, Budapest, Zemun, Braila, Brasov and Trieste.

Speakig of human capital, it is important to understand that business education started early for the sons of 19th century greek merchants. As we see from 19th century authors such as Demetrios Vikelas, after school the teenagers had tutoring that was based in three cornerstones: foreign languages, business correspondence and double-entry bookkeeping. Vikelas at age 16 had to be excellent in at least 2 foreign languages, copy all the business correspondence of his family's business and do the books under close supervision. In modern terminology, they did internships after school.
Of course, human capital is the best resource there is! Overall, this will benefit Greece tremendously as their population will be boosted over 50% from ~1.4 million to nearly 2.2 million people. That's not including the excellent centers of trade and centers of learning in the region that they will be acquiring such as Ioannina, Himara, and Argyrokastro among others.

In OTL Greece virtually forgot the existence of Sazan between 1864 and Greek marines landing there in 1912. Then it was quite willing to give it up for other concessions. So between Sazan and Himara I think they'll choose Himara hands down.
That's really weird, was there any particular reason for this or was it just too isolated to be of much value to Athens?

Metternich resigned from the Austrian government in the late months of 1848,he could have returned,but given that he was in charge when the spring of nations happened and how he handled that situation,i imagine his political career is over

Edit:furthermore why not let Hellas/Greece have the Island better Hellas rather than Italy,the Ottomans or Britain,with Greece they dont have any overlapping spheres of influence other than trade and perhaps the balkans while italy if it gains Sazans can blockade the Adriatic sea and cut off Austria in a future war,the same can happen with the other two nations the ottomans and Britain, while Greece having it is a Concern, it is a lesser evil compared to other options.
Yes, Metternich is gone for good. Due to his rather pronounced role in causing (and worsening) the Hungarian and Italian Revolutions, Vienna wants him as far away from Austria as possible, essentially indicating that this is a permanent exile.

Sazan Island will more than likely follow its OTL path for now.

By the way, Olga Katsiardi-Hering is an academic that has researched in depth the greek mercantile communities in Central Europe. You can download her publications from her uni page. Some of them are in greek and german but quite a few are in english.

I forgot to mention that Ioannina had a long and proud tradition in silversmithing. In 1862 there were 26 workshops in the city with more in neighboring towns and villages. Between trade and silversmithing it makes sense that one of the first branches of the Ottoman Bank opened in Ioannina. Perhaps in TTL we may see Sotirios Voulgaris, the patriarch of the House Bulgari, to migrate in Athens instead of Rome.


So you can see why the unofficial motto of the city was "The best in arms, money and education". These were the three qualities they admired: valor in arms, profit through trade or craft and education.
Thank you for linking these, my German's a little rusty and my Greek is almost non-existent, but I'll definitely take a look and see what I can find.

That's also really interesting regarding Ioannina's silversmithing industry. I knew it was around, but I didn't know it was that extensive or important in the community to the point that it became part of their motto. I think its safe to say that Sotirios, or rather his counterpart ITTL will be staying in Greece this time around.

Excellent update, although it strikes me as weird how the rebels got Ioannina, it is not an easy city to capture and since it was an important city for the Ottoman I would expect it to be well-garrisoned . When Ali Pasha rebelled against the Ottoman Empire in 1820, it took the Ottoman army 16 months to complete the siege of Ioannina , from September 1820 to January 1822 (thus tying a lot of soldiers who would otherwise be sent in Rumelia and Peloponnese to stop the Greek Revolution).
All in all it is a great achievement for Hellas .
Finally, I would love to see an ageing Markos Botsaris entering Souli, kissing the ground and dying there shortly after.
That was a mistake on my part. It was meant to be the lands around Ioannina, not Ioannina itself. It will be edited to represent that.

BTW, not only did I make a VT-BAM, I made a GIF of all the expansions so far:
ezgif-com-gif-maker-1.gif
This is amazing @Gian , and now I'm sad because I just made a big change to the border.

Maybe it's time for greece to really invest in railroads.. like the athens to Larissa railroad
That will definitely be on the agenda for Greece as soon as the war ends.

greece also needs to connect Ioannina with Arta and Preveza and invest in infrastructure in Epirus,it is quite bad at the moment
While you are correct on the need for infrastructure in Epirus but the problem is that epirus has a very rough terrain making infrastructure development very difficult and expensive
As Emperor Joe said, Epirus is rather mountainous, making road building rather difficult and expensive. There will be some infrastructure development in Epirus, but it won't be too outlandish.

what happened with the prince? Is he stil a lame duck? i don't remember a lot of his situation to be honest.
Prince Constantine is doing fine. He's married to Grand Duchess Anna Mikhailovna, has a daughter Princess Maria who was born in early 1854. His military training is going as well as can be expected and he's slated to graduate from the Evelpidon Military School in 1857 and begin a military career. Overall, he is a fine young man, if a bit introverted and unassuming. Leopold being the perfectionist and disciplinarian that he is, is not that impressed with his son's development, but in all honesty, nothing would.

@Earl Marshal , this is just a recommendation regarding the greek population. I know there is a canon for 1,4 mil in the mid 1850s, but Petmezas in his stellar work on greek agriculture, states that in 1864 after the annexation of the Ionian Islands the population was 1,365 mil.

ITTL the old kingdom included Crete, Chios, Samos, Ikaria, Arta and Preveza. Besides, Ibrahim was more contained in the revolution so for e.g Arcadia and Achaia were less raided (with fewer Greeks sold to slavery), while the eastern Central Greece didn't suffer as much as in OTL. Lastly, there is the arrival of European migrants after the 1848 revolutions. Perhaps 350k people could be added in the mid 1850s situation, or something like 400k if we take into account even a small population increase since 1830s.
1.4 million in 1853 seems roughly correct to me with a starting point of about 1000,000 people at independence. Crete would be 141,000 people, Samos 40,000, Chios 30-50,000 on the other hand Cretans and Samiotes that had not returned to their islands in OTL, roughly 10,000 in the case of Samos and way more in the case of Crete would not be in the OTL Greece balancing lower casualties during the war. Call it a starting population higher by a third compared to OTL that then grows by 37.6% up to 1853. Ad in some migration in 1849 and a bit higher population growth in 1831-33 when you don't have the anarchy after Kapodistrias death and the number's fit for going from roughly 1 million in 1830 to about 1.4 million in 1853.
I mean we already have a figure for the Ittl population in 1850 given that Koletis did a census,so it should be around there,but we also have to take into account that the emigration that will come to greece from western Europe as a result of 1848 revolutions(38.000)was the total figure for the whole period of 1849-1860,so it should be as you say around 1.4 million

didnt a lot emigration happen in the 1890-1910 period?i would expect the growth of the population of ittl greece to be higher given the increased standards of living and increased opportunities that the citizens have ittl
To be honest my prior population estimates were done prior to my decision to give Greece Epirus and Thessaly. As such, I hadn't planned on giving them the extra 450,000-500,000 people I ended up giving them here. Having said that, I did some quick math and I'd put it around 4 to 4.5 million people by 1900 provided of course there are no major changes to the border, no major wars, pandemics, genocides etc.
 

Gian

Banned
So after some thought, I've decided to give Greece Northern Epirus too as @Lascaris suggested. There really isn't a good reason not hand it over at this time as its a rather poor region, inhabited primarily by rebellious Greeks. As such, I've edited the last part accordingly and have also included a map of Greece's new borders, which I'll also post here for convenience (its a slightly edited version of the one provided by @Bloodmage).
View attachment 570401
Apologies to @Gian for now invalidating his wonderful VT-Bam of the Greece's territorial expansion ITTL.

This is amazing @Gian , and now I'm sad because I just made a big change to the border.

You know what, I'm going to revise the map and give them that part of Epirus as well.
 
By the way looking at the new map, I think something rather important has happened. For the first time in this timeline Greece has obtained lands that they don't own today. While Greece did occupy Northern Epirus for a time, this time it looks to be more permanent.

We finally got to this point. While Greece hasn't reached its modern size, it's already begun to show it's expanded potential. I'm glad the timeline finally got to this point, it's been a good journey, and I'm excited to see where it goes.
 

Gian

Banned
By the way looking at the new map, I think something rather important has happened. For the first time in this timeline Greece has obtained lands that they don't own today. While Greece did occupy Northern Epirus for a time, this time it looks to be more permanent.

We finally got to this point. While Greece hasn't reached its modern size, it's already begun to show it's expanded potential. I'm glad the timeline finally got to this point, it's been a good journey, and I'm excited to see where it goes.
Unfortunately ofc, with the Ottomans clinging to Macedonia like Giffany to Soos, that's about as far as they can go for the forseeable future.
 
And here's the updated GIF. Greece has certainly come a long way since Leopold arrived:
ezgif-com-gif-maker-2.gif

Gian if I may so ask what is the base for the map and the gif? Haven't delved in map making for well more years than I'd like to admit but the blank map here probably contained province subdivisions and major features like rivers? Been looking for a blank map that has this for both modern Greece and Turkey for ages...
 

Gian

Banned
Gian if I may so ask what is the base for the map and the gif? Haven't delved in map making for well more years than I'd like to admit but the blank map here probably contained province subdivisions and major features like rivers? Been looking for a blank map that has this for both modern Greece and Turkey for ages...
I just used the VT-BAM and some Paint.net. Nothin' to it.
 
Unfortunately ofc, with the Ottomans clinging to Macedonia like Giffany to Soos, that's about as far as they can go for the forseeable future.
Yeah it’s gonna take some sort of Balkan’s war analog or for the Greeks to attach themselves to the coat tails of another great power that decides to take a bite out of the Ottomans before Greece grows much. Unless Greece wants to try its hand at colonizing. Which could be interesting.
 
Yeah it’s gonna take some sort of Balkan’s war analog or for the Greeks to attach themselves to the coat tails of another great power that decides to take a bite out of the Ottomans before Greece grows much. Unless Greece wants to try its hand at colonizing. Which could be interesting.

Colonization is a pretty expensive endeavor, not to mention the difficulty of establishing and maintaining control of an overseas territory from within the Mediterranean, means that most places for colonization are out of reach for Greece, even with its better finances than OTL. This is, of course, ignoring what Britain, France, and Germany all have to say in regards to Greek expansion. The easiest location for Greek expansion outside of Europe and Asia is right across the waters to Cyrenaica as people in the thread have mentioned before. It's not very developed and therefore not as big of a fuss as say, Macedonia or Cyprus, but it was Greek in antiquity and fits the role of a colony as a prestige project. They aren't going to be extracting wealth to the same degree as the other empires are, and even with the oil fields considered, it'll take some time developing the infrastructure to take advantage of them as they are located deeper in the desert. That said, the lands around the Aegean are worth far more than some distant desert. Would be interesting if Cyrenaica becomes a "Seward's Icebox" situation where some Greek diplomat makes a deal for it in exchange for not pursuing certain borders, people seeing it as a waste, and then oil becomes discovered...
 
Colonization is a pretty expensive endeavor, not to mention the difficulty of establishing and maintaining control of an overseas territory from within the Mediterranean, means that most places for colonization are out of reach for Greece, even with its better finances than OTL. This is, of course, ignoring what Britain, France, and Germany all have to say in regards to Greek expansion. The easiest location for Greek expansion outside of Europe and Asia is right across the waters to Cyrenaica as people in the thread have mentioned before. It's not very developed and therefore not as big of a fuss as say, Macedonia or Cyprus, but it was Greek in antiquity and fits the role of a colony as a prestige project. They aren't going to be extracting wealth to the same degree as the other empires are, and even with the oil fields considered, it'll take some time developing the infrastructure to take advantage of them as they are located deeper in the desert. That said, the lands around the Aegean are worth far more than some distant desert. Would be interesting if Cyrenaica becomes a "Seward's Icebox" situation where some Greek diplomat makes a deal for it in exchange for not pursuing certain borders, people seeing it as a waste, and then oil becomes discovered...
The problem is that Cyrenaica is ottoman for now, if they tale it they will have to sacrify other lands
 
A few comments on the excellent map of @Earl Marshal :

These are extremely defensible borders! In contrast to the OTL Greek Thessaly, now Greece holds the hilly region of Elassona up to the Olympus mountain.

According to a phd thesis linked below (in greek unfortunately) Elassona had a 32,433 population in 1905, almost all of them Greeks. In 1876, the kaza of Konitsa, added in the new map, had 29k christians. In Delvino Diocese (Himara and a bit south) there were 6,885 christian households in 1874. With the median household in Epirus between 6 and 7, there were thus between 42k and 49k christians. The thesis gives a christian population of 226k for the whole Ioannina vilayet in 1850, the vast majority of whom are included now in the Greek Kingdom. The christian population may have been a bit higher because semi-nomadic pastoralists such as Sarakatsani and Vlachs were difficult to include in estimations.

It would be interesting to see whether the muslim population of Epirus will stay or migrate. I would say that the muslim burghers of Ioannina, being greek speakers and educated in greek schools will stay. Regarding the rest, the element most prone to depart could be sunni muslims, while the bektashi that have common customs with the christians (e.g. alcohol consumption) are more prone to stay.


Considering the above, I think @Earl Marshal 's estimation for a 4,5 million population by 1900 is valid.
 
Last edited:
Top